So You Want To Sink That Scum-Sucking Racist Zionist Neo-Con Spawn Of The Conniving Leo Strauss? Use Prolepsis! Here’s How
If you are planning to debate someone who disagrees with your politics — whether formally, or just the next time the moron spouts off while goldbricking at the water cooler — you need this nifty advice: anticipate what he’s likely to say, and practice your responses in advance.
Of course you support Obama (PBUH), and you want to wow the audience at your next confrontation with one of those damned Neanaderthaler. So, to make your local agent of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy look like the lobotomized robot he is, you hammer home the following points:
1. All of this tyranny talk is overheated and idiotic.
2. The original tea parties were about taxation without representation, today’s spending is the result of Democrats winning elections, so it’s taxation with representation.
3. These protests are unpatriotic astroturfing by plutocrats.
4. Republicans are hypocrites for suddenly caring about deficits.
5. The populist anger out there is the real face of America’s homegrown fascism.
Zing, what devastating stuff! What is there for anybody to say when you hit him with one or all of the above? Well, check it out here, and find out.
Your next step is to plan what you are going to say to those rebuttals, and…you are ready! Go forth fearlessly, for you are armed and dangerous!
The Penguin Post Explains The Implications Of The Latest Second Amendment Verdict
The second amendment to the US constitution tells the federal government not to infringe the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. In the recent Heller decision, that individual right was upheld unanimously, but one more nail remained to be driven in the coffin of the gun-banners: it had to be affirmed that the second amendment applies to what the state governments are allowed to do.
The framers of the constitution feared the federal government more than they feared the state governments, but they did not reckon with the Confederate States of America, nor did they realize that the ownership of firearms would be challenged most severely by southern states in order to disarm black former slaves. In a sense, history played a dirty trick on the framers. Only now is the nation really sorting the mess out. Here is what you need to know:
With the end of the Civil War, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution cleaned up slavery once and for all (wouldn’t that be nice? Now tell it to the Thai slavers who bring women into the USA). They also brought all the states into line as regards human rights; the fourteenth forbids any state from depriving the individual of due process. That means that all the relations between the police, courts and confinement facilities on the one hand and the people on the other must be fair, proper, regular, prescribed rather than ad hoc, decent, and above all, constitutional as defined in the federal constitution.
The best way to think of it is that now the states all have to accept the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) and live by that. No state can violate freedom of speech, press, and so on.
Then the courts began to spell things out in some detail. “Due process,” they agreed, is of two kinds: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process is the proper conduct of the jurisprudential/punitive agencies.
Substantive due process refers to the quality of the laws. No state can pass a law that goes against the Bill of Rights, for example; that would be a law that is not “substantial,” or solid, ethical, decent, proper, and so on. The governments cannot have bad law.
Unfortunately the firearms banners have long argued that the second amendment is special, even freaky, in that it does not apply to the states. Most legal scholars have unfortunately agreed, saying that even if Number Two does impose Liberty on the folks in every state, in order to make it obvious to everybody, a court must rule explicitly on the issue. Some judge must say, “All right, the second amendment applies to the states, just as does the first, so this anti-firearms law is unconstitutional.”
That just happened.
It’s as if the enemies of the Obama administration were piling on. After all, the Tea Parties are already causing lots of frustration in the lap-dog media, and loud teeth-gnashing is heard in the White House (parenthetical observation: what do you suppose this backpedalingmeans??).
So you have an administration that plans to restrict firearms as much as possible, and finds itself not only pestered by the teabag-slinging public but frustrated by some off-the-leash federal court. Awwwwww….
While The One tries to figure a way to circumvent this ruling, the various libertarian-minded groups will be filing cases against restrictive legislation in most states that have such laws. The first state court to declare one of those laws unconstitutional because of Heller and this recent case will be the third domino in a long, long line — and they will all fall.
They will fall, that is, IF justice and Liberty are served, and IF the Obama administration can not pull a stunt that prevents the expansion of the legal exercise of our rights.
How could The One gut or set aside the second amendment? Well, there was a time, not so long ago, when right-wing, “states’ rights” segregationists were doing all they could to prevent black folks from carrying on a civil rights movement. Some legal scholars and historians helped the bigots out: they reminded everyone that the three amendments that were vital to the end of slavery and the fair treatment of all people in all the states (13, 14, 15) had been rammed through the ratification process, and probably illegally. It seems the southern states never were properly involved in their adoption.
So a new generation of evil people might try to revive that dead argument in order to safeguard unconstitutional state or local firearms legislation.
That is a fantastic scenario, utterly without credibility or promise. It does demonstrate two data, however: first, the lengths you must go to if you want to get around the constitution, and second, a revealing parallel between the efforts of segregationists and gun-banners. Whenever authoritarian, discriminatory and repressive motives drive legislation intended to shape society according to an ideological goal, the constitution stands athwart the progress of rascals.
Once the courts have established the individual right to firearms and declared the obvious truth that the second amendment binds all levels of government, disarming the US public will be impossible. One might as well try to re-institute slavery.
The future is easy to see. The obvious next step for Obama will be the “reasonable restrictions and requirements” route. He will certainly try to argue that firearms, like automobiles, must be subject to regulations that do not violate the second amendment. He will attempt to snarl firearms ownership and use in a bureaucratic tangle that allows virtually anyone to be arrested at any time, and allows the police to confiscate his firearms (and not return them, even if no charges are filed). The new regulations will be numerous, complex and irksome to obey. The campaign of harassment will be resisted by abundant litigation.
Then too it is possible that Obama, upon realizing that he cannot impose defenselessness on the electorate, may deploy his promised domestic military force aggressively. (Again, recall Ruby Ridge.) The prospect may seem fanciful, but then a reading of the second and fourteenth amendments should convince a rational person that the debate over firearms was settled in the nineteenth century. The documents are explicit and definitive; there simply is no alternate interpretation. Banning and restricting firearms are unconstitutional. Yet Quixotic, Utopian opposition to that obvious truth arose, and often with malice. That suggests that more authoritarian social engineering may follow hard on the heels of past vanities. If you think speculating about the future involves goofy notions, just look where we have been…the past could hardly be more goofy than it is!
Indeed. In spite of the clear and unequivocal language of the two amendments, how long has it taken to drain the jurisprudential swamp? As soon as black citizens in the former Confederacy were disarmed in order to make them vulnerable to night riders and the KKK, much of the nation embarked on a policy that was neither ethical nor reasonable.
The insanity was bolstered by the mischievous fable that criminals can be disarmed by additional laws, and that the safety of the public would increase as the availability of certain types of firearms was reduced by legislation. The crowning absurdity was the banning of “assault rifles,” a law that demonstrated the Stygian ignorance and bigotry of the bicoastal elite.
So before you reject plausible scenarios for the future, remember that the journey so far has been preposterous.
Unless the Republic falls to a dictatorship that eradicates our heritage, history will record the folly of the effort to disarm the public. As soon as you chop Liberty up into individual bits and try to destroy some of them, you make a fool of yourself. Liberty is indivisible. Man is either free or he is not. All governments deny that obvious fact. And when they do, they bray like asses.
Should We Worry?
“Dissent is unhealthy, if you know what’s good for you.”
Those words come from a a weblog this newsletter has linked to on occasion.
They bespeak a vague yet menacing reality that is becoming clearer as the Obama administration builds up steam. The nation first saw real hints of trouble ahead when the candidate told us he has plans that include a domestic military (to deal with whom, he has not told us); when others noticed that the Obamaniacs were coaching the little ones — innocents too young to understand politics at any level — to spout slogans in song; when Hillary’s supporters complained of being literally denied admission to Democratic party caucuses; when The One’s connections to assorted loony figures raised questions about his judgment, and when the perception of his commitment to the constitution of the nation was blurred by a blizzard of irreconcilable remarks.
It was then that the PenPo began to warn that an authoritarian undercurrent could be detected in the tide of enthusiasm for The One (“the machinery of US dictatorship is already in place” says this (non-crackpot!) weblog).
Well, mocking the candidate as a Nazi is not the way to convince anyone of the danger — it’s just smart-ass babble, a raspberry from the cheap seats. (Yes, this newsletter is not above delivering itself of some childish insults, including suggestions that this or that politician is cut from an SA-brown bolt of cloth. Jeez, those kid-choirs…talk about creepy!) What is needed is solid evidence of skulduggery, and it’s in short supply.
Or it was. Now there are a few more bits of evidence to be offered for consideration by a properly skeptical electorate.
1. The Tea Party movement has provoked criticism from the Obama forces. The theme is, “These people are doing something they should not, because they are ignorant, defective and wrong.” The significance of this point cannot be appreciated until you grasp the hypocrisy of the Tea Parties’ critics: they loved dissent a few years or months ago, but now, it is “dangerous” and highly improper (See also the “Links” section, and the final link in this item). A true democrat does not react that way.
2. Note the sharp distinctions between typical left-wing and right-wing demonstrations/protests. The righties have a picnic mentality — “Let’s have some fun protesting the greedy, corrupt bastards who are hammering us with taxes and laws they don’t even read” — while the lefties think in terms of disrupting society, and damaging property, as well as using obvious threats of violence to prevent people from speaking. If the two groups were similar and met, there would be bloodshed. But they aren’t the same at all. It’s the lefties that can put a modern-day equivalent of the Nazi Sturmabteilung on the streets, not the righties. Not even ACORN has a right-wing equivalent.
3. It’s both difficult and troubling to try to read the omens. As Obama plays footsie with Venezuela’s Chavez, he risks creating the impression that he is tolerant of Marxist thugs. There was a time when the USA backed a variety of dictators who pledged support in the Cold War (in return for foreign aid, of course, as well as a moratorium on criticism of their violations of human rights). How much of a realist is Obama? Will he throw in with anyone, regardless of his credentials, in order to achieve a short-term goal? That is to say, is his relationship to Billy Ayers somehow instructive/predictive? What parts of Saul Alinsky’s anti-establishment heritage has Obama incorporated into his ethos? What, exactly, does the anxiety-producing record of ACORN imply about Obama’s ethics of political tactics, and what will come of the revamping of the census?
It’s all rather like a whiff of smoke. Is something burning, and if so, does it matter?
The electorate will have to watch the White House closely in order to decide.
This newsletter will also be interested in the views of unofficial types who are eager to support the administration by opposing the “wingnuts.” For example, if one of your celebrity supporters says this….
…the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. … It is a neurological problem we’re dealing with.
…on a national TV show that is frankly “progressive” — and if the host of the talk show does not tell the babbling zealot to shut up and sober up…it’s fair to say that a significant number of your people are just plain nuts.
Decent people don’t ignore talk like that. They denounce it as what it obviously is: damnable Nazi pseudo-science that has been used to justify mass murder. Dr. Mengele has a modern-day disciple who seems to be in step with the prevailing leftist drumbeat. Who among her peers is upbraiding her for her hateful lies?
The silence on the left matters. It tells us something about the ethics of one of the combatants in the culture war.
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It’s not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the “right” to education, the “right” to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle. — P.J. O’Rouke, 1993
Anti-Cancer Drug Becomes A Bone Of Contention
A few years ago, a non-patentable drug called dichloroacetate (DCA) was found to have an anti-cancer effect. Many drugs kill cancer — the problem is, they also kill the patient. DCA has the advantage of being a drug that has already been approved as safe for human use, which gives it a head start toward clinical trials. Research into its effectiveness against malignancies was begun at the University of Alberta.
Getting funding for clinical trials was extremely difficult, because no one would be able to make money from a boom in sales of the drug. The researchers were literally begging for money from the public. Several years have passed, and the results are still incomplete and inconclusive.
DCA has side effects (it is not non-toxic), and its dosage for cancer is still being puzzled out. It does not affect all types of cancer. In the event that DCA kills a large percentage of a large tumor quickly, the patient can die because the dead cancer cells are toxic. Before you try to obtain DCA and begin self-medication (some folks already have), read this important page put up by the folks who are researching the drug in Alberta.
Unfortunately DCA is now seen by many as the cancer cure that the AMA and drug companies want to suppress. That is conspiracist nonsense.
This weblog, for example, is a bit too enthusiastic. And this video starts off with some dramatic flourishes that may overwhelm the information provided later in the report by the researcher working on DCA.
If the Obama administration wants to do something good, it should fund DCA clinical studies, for this drug may be helpful.
Billions, and then billions more for pork; a “stimulus” bill that nobody even read; a madcap spending orgy in which virtually no one is denied benefits, as long as he is connected, and how much for a relatively cheap program with some promise? Over to you, Mr. President….
Their Holy Writ Has Been Debunked, But The Cultists Ignore That
Ignorant, stupid and dangerous: the concept of carbon offsets. How’s this for begging the question?
All these methods of pricing carbon permit the creation of a carbon market that will allow us to pollute beyond a catastrophic tipping point. In other words, they require us to put a price on the final “killing” tonne of CO2 which, once emitted, tips the balance and triggers runaway global warming.
It can’t happen, because as you know thanks to this newsletter, CO2 does not cause climate change. But the lunacy proceeds in spite of the facts. The New Scientist is on board Al Gore’s ship of fools, while the public, in the main, is not.
Meanwhile, here’s more news on the continuing freak show. The AGW cult is not science, so there is no skepticism involved, as this newsletter has pointed out. It’s deceit, dishonesty and malpractice. Click on the links and see why the PenPo can say that.
Now this, if true, is very naughty: “It appears that democrats were associating with FARC terrorists even before the election. And, now these FARC killers are no longer considered terrorists.” That and more is found here.
Hard to believe: microbes that breathe iron. No kidding.
Webloggers appear to have job security and career prospects journalists often do not. You might not believe this report, but it’s from an authoritative source.
Good grief! Do not miss this….
At first blush, this looks interesting, but watch out — the alert PenPo staff caught an error right away: Albert Einstein died in 1955, so he could not have been dying in 1957. This entire article on weather as weapon seems fake, conspiracist, and sloppy-goofy. But fun for science fiction fans.
OK, try this, then: there’s evidence for the ultimate marine heritage of mankind.
Why are “progressives” so negative about US culture, foreign policy, and the overall US mindset, even to the point that many side with the enemies of Western Civilization and reject Enlightenment values? It’s a puzzle that many have tried to solve, and this contribution to the discussion is particularly cogent. Highly recommended. Then here’s a lower-voltage rumination on the anger of the left that’s not as trenchant and terse as it could be.
It’s a mistake to run tiny combat operations from the White House. But if you went to law school, you probably think there is no job you can’t do well. You elitist, egotistical jerk….
Socialized medicine: “The doctor will not see you now.” What??
They are not simply small humans; their leg and hip structure is very australopithecine, which implies all sorts of shocking things about proto-human migration patterns and a lot more. This tale is not fully told yet.
Here’s information on ethanol. Another really stupid idea turns out to be really stupid.
It did not take any imagination to see this coming, and the closer it gets, the scarier the world becomes. A nuclear Iran? That’s a genuine horror!
US firearms in Mexico — someone (guess who, see the eleventh paragraph of the article) fiddled the real statistics, so Obama went to Mexico and, following the embarrassing example of Secretary Hillary (“You have a marvelous virgin”) Clinton’s stumblebum diplomacy, quoted the faked figures to the nation of Mexico and the world. The US government is doing just about all it can to make the Mexicans think everybody north of the the border is a babbling ignoramus.
Journalism by and for the elite is a confluence of privilege and ideology that inevitably results in censorship. How you view this responseto perfectly proper journalistic practice depends on your politics.
What’s a tea party, and what does it mean? This is the best answer around.
From The Archive
You might find it interesting to see what the Penguin Post’s predecessor, The Terrapin Gazette, had to say about Iraq. Has the official line changed? Here is an item taken from the fiftieth issue of the TG, published on June 10, 2005:
Islam, Muslims, Arabs, Iraq And Other Pestiferous Subjects
People simply do not appreciate the nature of the threat, and they find it impossible to believe that it is serious.
That makes articles such as this fundamentally important. Here is our edited version of some of the remarks to be found on this site:
The word “Jihad” alludes to a belief-system that has exhibited, in time and space, remarkably similar effects on its adherents. Understand that the “war on terrorism” is in fact a war of self-defense against that Jihad. This defensive effort has no date of expiration and no end, and requires that every instrument of Jihad be countered. Those instruments include not only terrorism and combat (qital), but economic warfare or the weapon of “wealth,” propaganda (“pen, tongue” in Muslim terms) which includes the systematic, well-funded and sinister Call to Islam (Da’wa), by which an imperfect and even primitive understanding of Islam is allowed to hook the economically and psychically marginal.
Of course the most important new weapon is that of demography, by which — in an unprecedented manner in human history — large numbers of those who believe in an actively and permanently hostile alien ideology have been allowed to settle in Western nations. They have even been accommodated in every conceivable fashion within the countries, and hence behind the lines, of Infidels everywhere.
In times to come, we hope to do more to provide the facts about Islam. It is by its very nature a hostile and imperialistic belief system that threatens every non-Muslim.
Meanwhile, Iraq. As we have said repeatedly, you get little news and lots of propaganda from this region. Not everything makes it past the gatekeepers, and some of the surviving stories are given only token distribution. Here is a genuinely interesting account that has reached us because it circumvented the media’s “gates;” the author hopes to follow it with more like it in days to come. See this webpage.
The US strategy has brought the War on Terror home to the Middle East — the politically dysfunctional Middle East where Assads, Zarqawi, Saddam, and radical Wahhabs mix.
Speaking of strategy, what is Washington thinking of? Well, a great deal, and none of it is what John Pilger and Robert Fisk say it is. Consider this quote from an article in the LA Times.
“What we want is a world of democratic, market-oriented countries,” said Stephen Krasner, whose job as head of policy planning at the State Department is to direct the search for future external challenges that might face the country. “The big challenge is how to get there.”
Our take: if everyone had read Barnett (The Pentagon’s New Map), this would all be clear. As it is, however, confusion and ignorance permit the intrusion of some malignant propaganda. What the world needs is a dose of reality, and the news media are not helping! As the title of a famous weblog suggests, we should let Iraq be the model.
That would mean understanding what Iraq is about, and few in high positions are willing to do that — or tolerate those of us who make the effort. Take the UN, for example, and its former inspector Hans Blix, for another bad example.
Now let it be said at once that Blix was not a sleuth, not a searcher, and not a detective. He was an inspector. He was capable of looking at things that were put in front of him, but when it came to digging up hidden evidence, he was a naive incompetent.
So Saddam and his cronies were able to hide a very great deal from Blix. A lot of it may be found some day, by which we mean people will still be coming up with all sorts of scary things in Iraq a hundred years from now.
First, read this article.
American marines have discovered an elaborate series of underground bunkers used recently by insurgents in central Iraq…. The bunker system is 558 feet by 902 feet, nearly equal to a quarter of the Empire State Building’s office space….
Decades ago, Saddam Hussein and his aides began building an extensive series of underground bunkers scattered around Iraq. Mr. Hussein hired German engineers in the 1980’s to work on these lairs, which included tunnels and chambers beneath palaces in Baghdad and Mosul. It is not known, however, whether the quarry bunker is part of that network.
When United Nations weapons inspectors scoured Iraq in the months before the American invasion, they thoroughly searched many of these bunkers, but came up with nothing.
Now consider these facts: the thugs and fanatics currently fighting to destroy Iraqi democracy did not construct this complex. They had neither the time nor the equipment for such a massive project. They moved into a facility that Saddam built years ago. It was totally unknown to Blix and the UN inspectors.
That implies that only a percentage of what Saddam built has been found, and we have no idea whether that is 50% or 10% or 90%.
You don’t hear much about what has been discovered. The plans for the core technology of Saddam’s nuclear bomb program were put in a large barrel and buried in the garden of the project’s head man. Giant calutrons remain totally unmentioned by the media. (Puzzled? Do a Google on “calutron.”)
A very great deal has been overlooked, lost, hidden, undiscovered. Because of that, there is no mystery about what happened to those big, nasty, inhuman weapons Saddam had: some were probably destroyed, some were probably exported, and…this is the point…all of them, absolutely all of them, could have been hidden inside Iraq.
The UN could find only a few of the obvious underground facilities — the ones Saddam wanted the bumbling Blix to find.
From beginning to end, Saddam made monkeys of the UN. Only because Blix never realized how he was fooled was he able to write his silly book.
That huge bunker the Marines just discovered demonstrates the rationale behind our argument. Fact: we simply don’t know what remains in Iraq, what will be uncovered in decades to come, and where any of it will turn up.
All right, so the desert has its secrets. Now let’s turn to a discussion of some issues touching on Iraq’s future. Visions of what is to come vary, but they seem to depend on how the visionaries look at the USA.
To Be Concluded In The Next Penguin Post